posted at 5:00 pm on March 29, 2011 by Allahpundit

Repeat as necessary: It’s not a war. But given the news today about a quietly expanding air campaign, possible weapons shipments to the rebels, and maybe even ground troops down the line, it surely isn’t a “time-limited, scope-limited military action” anymore either. We need a new euphemism. How about a “Flexible, Unified Bombardment/Air Reaction”?

Hillary Clinton has paved the way for the United States to arm the Libyan rebels by declaring that the recent UN security council resolution relaxed an arms embargo on the country…

But Clinton made clear that UN security council resolution 1973, which allowed military strikes against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, relaxed the embargo. Speaking after the conference on Libya in London, Clinton said: “It is our interpretation that [resolution] 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. We have not made that decision at this time.”…

Signs of a growing international support for arming the rebels was highlighted by Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al-Thani, the prime minister of Qatar, who was the most senior Arab politician to attend the summit. Al-Thani, whose country is providing military aircraft to help patrol the no-fly zone over Libya, said: “We did not discuss [arming the rebels] – definitely [at the conference]. But our opinion is that we have to evaluate the air strikes after a while to see if it is effective to protect the people of Libya or not.

British foreign minister William Hague told reporters later that the subject of arming the rebels never came up, which makes me wonder which international conference on Libya he was attending this morning. As for peacekeepers, the latest spin from the White House is that they’re not pushing explicitly for regime change because if we bump off Qaddafi then we’ll “have a far greater ownership over what comes next” in Libya. It’s the Powell doctrine, in other words: If we “break” Libya by putting the Mad Dog down, then we’ve bought it. Haven’t we already bought it, though, by aligning ourselves with the rebels? Does anyone think the west is going to allow a total power vacuum in Tripoli, knowing that if fundamentalists seize the initiative and fill it, Obama and Sarkozy and Cameron et al. will be blamed for handing an oil-rich country over to jihadis? Admiral Stavridis is already facing reality about the aftermath:

During a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island asked Adm. James Stavridis about NATO putting forces into “post-Gadhafi” Libya to make sure the country doesn’t fall apart. Stavridis said he “wouldn’t say NATO’s considering it yet.” But because of NATO’s history of putting peacekeepers in the Balkans — as pictured above — “the possibility of a stabilization regime exists.”…

The new prospect of NATO force on the ground in Libya seemed to alarm Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who got Stavridis to say that there’s “no discussion of the insertion of ground troops” in NATO circles. (And “to my knowledge” there aren’t troops there now, he said.) But Stavridis told Reed that the memory of the long NATO peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans is “in everyone’s mind.”

Emphasis on “long.” If you missed this excellent TNR piece by Steven Metz last week on the inevitability of an insurgency in Libya — no matter which side wins — read it now. A lot of western (and possibly Arab) nations may be asked to place troops in the middle of that and not all may be as resolute about seeing this through as they are right now. I wonder what The One’s paeans to coalitions and multilateralism will sound like once some of our European allies start bugging out. For that reason, perhaps, and in order to speed the outcome of this war along without much further escalation, NATO countries are talking openly today about offering Qaddafi a cushy exile beyond the reach of any international tribunals. Susan Rice refused to rule it out on ABC this morning and Italian diplomats reportedly are trying to convince some African country to take him, packaged no doubt with a hefty cash payment from grateful western nations. The thinking, I assume, is that if Qaddafi bugs out semi-voluntarily rather than ends up being killed, it’ll make his loyalists in Tripoli and elsewhere less vengeful towards the new government. Could be. Or it could be that the fact that he’s still alive and safe somewhere on the continent will keep the flames of devotion burning. Quite a gamble.

I’ll leave you with this new data from Pew. A near-majority support the mission right now, 47 percent in favor versus 36 percent against. But doubts are already beginning to grow…

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

For that reason, perhaps, and in order to speed the outcome of this war along without much further escalation, NATO countries are talking openly today about offering Qaddafi a cushy exile beyond the reach of any international tribunals. Susan Rice refused to rule it out on ABC this morning and Italian diplomats reportedly are trying to convince some African country to take him, packaged no doubt with a hefty cash payment from grateful western nations.

Rush was discussing this earlier. He thought this outcome would benefit Obama, but I disagree. The idea that the man who ordered the deaths of countless Americans through terrorist acts being allowed to live out his remaining years in a life of luxury with full immunity will not sit well with most folks.

Qaddafi is either killed or arrested or this ends up being a political and foreign policy nightmare for Obama.

so wait, we’re arming rebels and bombing qdafy just because there was a chance he was going to do what again? Cleanse his own people?
This is Clintonic wag the dog idiocy: pick a civil war, choose a side, bombs away.

Might almost be worth sending them some stuff just to watch the rebels trying to operate it,..which of course, leads to the question of U.S. advisors, trainers, etc, all barefoot because we have been assured no boots on the ground.

Excuse me but wasn’t Hillary one of the people crying about American guns ending up in Mexico….?
Now she want’s to arm rebels and possibly Al-Qaeda members to go out and kill people.
Do we get the guns back when it’s all over ?

Why has she let her appearance go to he11 lately? Depression? Pending retirement? On the outs with Billy-boy?

slickwillie2001 on March 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM

To appear important. Instead she looks schlampert. Even Albright looked more put together, so help you. Her advisers are scared of her or she let them go.

The entire admin. is mad.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Lolz.

I thought and said the same thing for months, but lately she has cleaned up a bit. She started washing and combing that greasy hair and ironing her pantsuits. Bet she even has a neutral odor about her instead of smelling like a nasty ol’ barfly.

Quick, underceij and crr need to come in and tell us that we’re just too stupid to understand the incredibly NUANCED plans of BHO.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2011 at 5:29 PM

It’s the complete opposite of the kind of military action we opposed in Iraq. Here there’s an imminent threat to both the stability of the region and the citizens of the Libyan nation, and we have broad international support.

crr6 on March 19, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Except for Albania, who helped with Bush’s coalition but not with this one. Making this coalition LOL-Worthy.

It’s the complete opposite of the kind of military action we opposed in Iraq. Here there’s an imminent threat to both the stability of the region and the citizens of the Libyan nation, and we have broad international support.

Jeez. We should have either stayed out, or (my preference) bumped off Gadaffi early on when the rebels had the initiative and were less dominated by islamists. Instead, we’re turning this situation into a slow meat grinder, like post-Soviet Afghanistan. What could possibly go wrong?

11:10pm Al-Arabiya television reports that two explosions have shaken the Aziziyah gate area of Tripoli.

.

Timestamp:
11:05pm Anita McNaught in Tripoli reports that the airstrikes in the Tajoura district of Tripoli targetted bases used by the Khamis brigade, one of the “better armed brigades” that is loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. She says these bases have been repeatedly targetted, and that this could be because they are said to have “underground facilities”.

Targeting underground airports is a legitimate aspect of the NFZ. BTW, we haven’t taken sides in this. haven’t picked winners and losers. Nosirree.

The Right, Conservatives, a President, have been taken to the woodshed for the very idea that “we” somehow armed the Taliban, or armed and trained Osama, despite the fact that the Taliban didn’t come about until after the Soviet-Afghan War ended and none of “our” arms nor training went to the “foreign” mujihadeen during the war in Afghanistan. Pakis and Saudis may have done so, but “we” did not.

Now, today, we have a President, a Secretary of State, and a Secretary of Defense going to arm groups that have ties, connetions and loyalties with Al-Qaeda and the Ikhwan?

When did those groups become solid pro-American and liberty loving homies?

NEVER GET BETWEEN PARTIES IN A CIVIL WAR. I thought that was the message we got after Vietnam. Clinton and Obama keep quoting the United Nations and not the Constitution. Libya did not come under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 only authorizes the President to commit troops under certain conditions and Libya did not fit any of them. No President since the 1973 passage have followed it, they all have used it but not the way it was supposed to.